I'm in the same position as Strider, but using a verb/adj. I think is more correct. My suggestion: "Sanguine crucis adiungimur." <---uses a verb, so literal translation: "We are bound by the blood of the cross."

You might also choose a dative, by changing sanguine to sanguini, it would mean "we are bound to the blood of the cross". I recommend checking the verb to see what constructions are acceptable before you finalize it though (if you need help with that, just ask).

benissimus wrote:You might also choose a dative, by changing sanguine to sanguini, it would mean "we are bound to the blood of the cross". I recommend checking the verb to see what constructions are acceptable before you finalize it though (if you need help with that, just ask).

O.K. I need some help.

I have been looking up stuff on this latin phrase (remember, I don't know latin...only what I can invesigate through books and online) and this is what I have come up with. Please give any advice that you might have.

We are bound by the blood of the cross ---->Sanguine crucis adiungimur

How does adding "imur" to "adiung" (which means the same as "adiungimur") change the meaning or tense of the word? "I.mur" means something completely different, yet when it is added to "adiung" it ends up meaning the same thing as "Adiung" by itself?!?

Whew...I know what I am trying to say, but I am not sure if I am explaining it correctly or not. Sorry if this is confusing...

How does adding "imur" to "adiung" (which means the same as "adiungimur") change the meaning or tense of the word? "I.mur" means something completely different, yet when it is added to "adiung" it ends up meaning the same thing as "Adiung" by itself?!?

I'll try to address this with a, hopefully, simple analogy.

In English we use some verbs in two different ways: main verbs and helping verbs. An example is the verb "have".

I have the flu. (main verb - present tense -- I'm sick rignt now)
I have survived the flu. (helping verb - completes the idea of survival; the illness is over)

Same verb -- different function and meaning.

Here's another one.

He is my friend. (main verb -- identifies someone)
He is reading a book. (helping verb -- shows that the action of reading is in the present tense)

In Latin, helping verbs and most subjects are not found as separate words but as endings on the basic verb.

In your example, we have "imur" used in two totally different ways, just as "have" and "is" above.

As a separate word, "imur" comes from a verb with the basic meaning of "go". The "-mur" at the end represents "we".

As an ending "-imur" means that the verb it is attached to is in the present tense (are) and the "-mur" part means "we" -> "we are joined". This is a totally different idea from going.

"Adiung" is never used by itself. It must have some kind of ending to complete the idea (subject, tense, etc.)

Here are some semi-comparisons (is that a "real word"?) in English where we must add an ending to a verb to complete its meaning.

I have walk to work all my life. (-ed)
We are go to wash the car. (-ing)
He always sign his checks in black ink. (-s)

In Latin these endings are much more varied and crucial to the meaning than in English. Most people would understand what is meant by those three English sentences; however, in Latin missing or incorrect endings can totally change the meaning.

Actually I don't think adiung is a word - if you're searching the Notre Dame dictionary and enter any part of any word, even just two letters, you'll bring up all the Latin words that begin with those two letters. If there were a similar dictionary for English, and you searched "conscie", it would bring up the exact same result as "conscience".
Also, I'm going to have to disagree with Magistra and say it's a coincidence that -imur is contained at the end of the word. This is because the infinitive of "adiungimur" is "adiungere", and -imur is just an ending like the English -ed, -ing, or -s. The translation of "Adiungimur." is "We are bound." Here, the -i denotes that it's present tense, and the -mur denotes that it's first person plural ("we".)
An English example: the word "Visited". Does it mean something that the English name "ted" is contained at the end? Probably not, especially considering that "visit" (which contains no "ted") is not the main form of the verb - if you were looking it up in the dictionary, you'd look up "visit".

If you're interested in this kind of thing, I'm sure everyone would love to help you begin Latin...grammar is fun!!!

Maybe I'm missing something and am about to make a big a** of myself but;

Isn't the original english sentence best translated by a perfect participle (if that's what it's called. Grammatical terms in English isn't exactly my strong point). For example: Adiuncti sanguine crucis (sumus). My understanding is that adiungimur means more 'are beeing bound' (i.e. the action is incomplete). Then again since English isn't my first languange that may very well be what the original sentence is supposed to mean.

Another thought that came up is about the dat/abl of sanguis. I think if we are to understand the sentence in the way that we are bound together by the blood (which I think) then what should be used is the abl 'sanguine' however if we are bound TO the blood then it should be in the dat 'sanguini'.

fluff wrote:Maybe I'm missing something and am about to make a big a** of myself but;

Isn't the original english sentence best translated by a perfect participle (if that's what it's called. Grammatical terms in English isn't exactly my strong point). For example: Adiuncti sanguine crucis (sumus). My understanding is that adiungimur means more 'are beeing bound' (i.e. the action is incomplete). Then again since English isn't my first languange that may very well be what the original sentence is supposed to mean.

Another thought that came up is about the dat/abl of sanguis. I think if we are to understand the sentence in the way that we are bound together by the blood (which I think) then what should be used is the abl 'sanguine' however if we are bound TO the blood then it should be in the dat 'sanguini'.

/fluff

Fluff - If I understand correctly, then you are saying that it sould be "Adiuncti sanguine crucis" which means "We are bound by the blood of the cross". And this is giving the sense of the act already DONE compared to a process that is currently BEING done.

The death on the cross is already done. As you have said "the action is complete".

Am I understanding this correctly?

Thanks Fluff! Your not making an a** out of yourself. You are being very helpful!

Jeffrey

P.S.

I have been going over the Latin beginners book, and have been trying to figure out how to pronounce the words. I understand sanguine and crucis but how do you pronounce Adiuncti?

In the reconstructed Classical pronunciation it would be something like...

Ahd-yoonk-tee sahn-gwih-neh crooh-kiss

I am not sure about the Ecclesiastical pronunciation, but if you were to use that style, you would probably spell adiuncti as "adjuncti" and pronounce it as a J. I don't know of any situation where you would not pronounce a consonant.

PastorJeff wrote:Fluff - If I understand correctly, then you are saying that it sould be "Adiuncti sanguine crucis" which means "We are bound by the blood of the cross". And this is giving the sense of the act already DONE compared to a process that is currently BEING done.

The death on the cross is already done. As you have said "the action is complete".

Am I understanding this correctly?

Yes, thats my understanding anyway. Since English doesn't have passive verb forms (unlike for example Latin or Swedish) and uses constructions with perfect passives and the verb 'to be' instead it's a bit difficult to explain the difference completely (and sometimes the difference is very small or even non existant). Interesting question though. Haven't really thought about it before.

Thanks Fluff! Your not making an a** out of yourself. You are being very helpful!

I concur with Fluff - the use of the present passive indicative does suggest an incomplete, ongoing action, and therefore the past participle in the plural (preferably omitting "sumus") would be more appropriate. However, given that this is a t-shirt slogan referring to a group of people, perhaps "coniuncti" would be better?